Redstate

I don't know that there isn't some potential risk involved but the arguments are mostly specious. We've been told 'the ports are being sold' which is patent nonsense. We've heard the usual off the wall nonsense about 'only 3 percent of containers are inspected' which as a standalone fact is true but totally out of context of the actual process of cargo clearance.

The proposed sale is of a contract for management services at these ports. No one is buying the Port of New York or the Port of Miami. There are dozens of actors involved in providing various services at these ports. P&O the current contract holder is not responsible for port security, that rests with the Coast Guard, DHS and the local port authority.

The Congress is in high dudgeon again because the administration is performing it's administrative functions without getting the approval of Congress. If everything done by the administrative functions of the federal government required positive consultation with Congress nothing would ever get done (not necessarily a bad thing :-) If Congress wants an interactive role in every such decision then they have a remedy --- change the law. We have three branches of government for a reason; it is the the executive's job to do the day to day business of the country, not the Congress.

And given that everyone in the Capitol building is an expert on everything this approval cycle would come to a conclusion about the time the sun burns out. I suppose a simple question for Rep. Blackburn would be 'what makes you think that the Congress is uniquely qualified to intervene in this decision?'

If there is any way UAE citizens or royal family or any person from the Middle East can determine who works at the actual ports in the US, if they would have that much influence, I would oppose it. I am sure that is the case, so I wouldn't support it. Corruption can get to any level, and we have seen that high gov't officials and business officials in Middle Eastern countries are sympathetic to terrorists. And with all due respect, I don't trust our gov't to scrutinize the UAE's security for U.S. ports.

I remember during the Tora Bora battle I was thinking "I am sure we have aircraft, satelites, Predator drones, etc. watching every possible escape route during the entire battle(even the cease fire)". I was wrong. Evidently we were relying on Pakistan. We have done the same thing in Iraq (relied too much on Iraqi officials) so I do not trust our gov't to let another gov't handle a situation that has to do U.S. national security.

exactly what "tough scrutiny" entails, or do you have to be a tough scrutiny expert to nose around and find out.  Who will this company hire, what are their screening processes and how are they adminstered?  If one of the basic functions of Congress is to investigate and inquire I could think of a lot worse things for them to practice on.

Even if security is handled by other entities, the company managing the port is aware of procedures in order to comply. Can anyone reasonably guarantee that no one in the managing corporation from the UAE will be sympathetic to the terrorists and disclose vital information?

Why should we take the risk?

Could any domestic company make that guarantee?

Don't paint yourself into a corner.

taking this function. Are we that expensive?

Given the recent events in Nigeria and its effects on oil market speculation, coinciding with a presidential three-country tour ostensibly designed to drive home the SOTU energy message....I just don't get that Secretary Chertoff would choose this time to unveil what is certain to be a flying-wedge issue in Congress leading up to the mid-terms when gas prices are certain to rise.

There must be something else going on here.

adjusts tinfoil hat

This is a great issue to demagogues. The Arabs are coming!

What's particularly disconcerting is that the good congresslady would assume that such boob bait for the bubbas would play well here.

that the vast majority of the work will be done by US citizens/residents this is a good question. The current contract holder P&O hasn't imported an army of Brits or something to do the work, they hire locals. As a matter of fact that's one of the points that has been made about the purchase, the people doing the work will be the same, just the name on the contract changes.

So why is there no US management company stepping into the breech? If Congress wants to investigate something maybe they should investigate what is it that is keeping an American company from doing this work. The other thing they could investigate is what the h*ll happened to the US merchant marine; I forget the number of US flagged ships in commerce but it's pitifully small. There are a number of reasons for this, not the least of which is US merchant marine labor regulations.

Congressman Blackburn if you want to have investigations investigate those two questions; leave the administrative functions to the administrative branch.

but I am also a pragmatist.  This makes no sense at all.  This is just fodder for the left.

It is unbelievably tone-deaf politically.  Putting aside the merits of the deal, it is an opening for the Left/Dems on national security issues.  They can run ads that implicity play to fears (which lets face it, are justified) about Arab terrorists and will not be excoriated for it by the media, or by the professional Arab ethnic-grievance groups in the way that Republicans would.  

And this is a big concern, IMHO.

It is a legimate and time honored, and sometimes dishonored, function of Congress to probe and inquire.  There is no reason in precedent or history why they can't do this with administration functions, after all a primary order of business for the executive branch is administration and how or why should this escape Congressional oversight.  Concerning the difference between U.S. companies and  the one in question; a fast answer, background checks and review of local hiring practices.  I would think it easier to do with an American company and U S citizens rather than a firm more susceptible to infiltration from undesirable sources and located  thousands of miles distant.  We seem to be doing a pretty good job with Wal Mart, from the perspective of some.  How well would we do with Wal Casbah?

even hold the Congress to.  There's a reason why the administration (all admin's for that matter) are reluctant to give Congress info.  They leak.

This deal should be rejected on national security grounds.  The almighty dollar can wait as far as I'm concerned.  It's also been over four years since 9/11 and still our southern border is wide open.  If Al Qaeda sneeks a nuke in in a shipping container or through the southern border, the responsibility will lay squarely at President Bush's feet.  BTW, say hi to yours and my good friend Howie Morgan for me.  We miss him out here in California.

Powder Blue Report

I have long contendered that we stoopid people do no't have enuf say in how things get run. But we should. All these smarty-pants people in that there Bush Administration want to put Arabs right out where other arabs can see them running the operations.

Speaking as a stupid person, I think its better if we don't know where they are. We nead to have good old American cumpnies hiring and paying all the guys named Mohammed who work in these places. That way we will feel gud an we won't know about the Mohammeds.

If I was a terrist the first place I wood go to arrange bringing in da bomb would be a arab compney running a port in the United Snakes. No one would suspect a thing.

That Chertoff probly thinks he can bug and infilterate the arab compney so when the terrists come he will find them because that is where they will go.

But we must stop him. We need to jump up and down and scream and stuff so that this plan does not go through and the Mohammeds stay hidden from Chertoff. That's the stupid thing to do.

If Chertoff is so smart why doesn't he just tell us that they have spies in the Arab compney, and that's why they want to set it up like a honey pot. Why should that be secret? The American people, and especially the Congress people, need to know what we have bugged and where we put spies. It's only right. It's time to stop these smarty pants Bush people and start doing things stupid.

what superior intellect, knowledge, experience, whatever the Congress brings to this question? The Congress is the penultimate political organization and all they can do in this matter is politicize it.

The role of the Congress is to enact laws to govern the country. The role of the Executive is to execute and enforce those laws. The Congress has provided a mechanism for the administration to examine these kinds of questions and if they are now unhappy with that they should change the law. At some point we have to accept that the people executing the laws of this country are doing so to the best of their ability and with the best interests of the country at heart.

The Congress inserting itself into this matter at this point serves no useful function other than to kill the deal. If that is your objective, kill it without regard to whether it is good or bad, right or wrong, rightly or wrongly determined, then this is the perfect solution.

One caveat however. Beware the Law of Unintended Consequences. If in fact they manage to kill the deal, they had better have an alternate plan in place. P&O will be in the position where the government has interfered in their business and their relationship with the six ports involved. What are the ports going to do if P&O decides to walk away from their contract? Who is going to get sued? Who will take their place?

I don't know what will happen but clearly something will and it is a safe bet that it is not something that the noble members of Congress planned for.

than the voters, after all, we voted for them.

The most ihmportant thing is to keep Chertoff from cimplting his churts.  Then we'll B safe, LOL OMG WTF!

Hmmm.

A port management company deals with shipping schedules, ship departures and arrivals, schedules for using docks, replenishment and a host of other things.  None of this involves security.

Frankly this whole rotten mess is complete hogwash.  That there are Republicans involved in this stupidity is the result of Delay being pushed out and his replacement being an utter waste of time.

Yeah this is important all right.  It's a national security issue as to just who has the contract to pump out the ships sewage systems.

What a waste of time.

First posty here so let me point out some things which you folks don't seem to get

 This is the most American of institution-Politics-

Look so many folks out there in blog land and in the grass roots have been saying "Secure the borders" but the politicians haven't done so. Why you ask? because doing so is a signifigant risk politically. So now they get something wrapped up in a bow that allows them to posture to "secure our borders" without doing any such a thing. of the many failings of the Bush administration their inability to deal with the political landscape is why they are ineffective. Politics doesn't stop when the election does

As I said when I first raised this issue a week ago, when Tom Coburn and Chuck Schumer agree on something, everybody ought to stop and take a good hard look.

I find this incredible.  Even if there is zero security risk involved in this misadventure, what kind of message does this send to our troops, our citizens, and our enemies?

Our troops are making the ultimate sacrifice in Irag, while our government can not make the simple sacrifice of not allowing a UAE company to operate a domestic port.  

How will our enemies view this action.  Does anyone care to guess.

At a time of war, isn't it important for the government to reassure the people that the government will do all it can to defend the Country from our enemies.  Will the knowledge that an Arab nation is running the operation of domestic port be reassuring to the population.  I think not.

This is seems pretty straight-forward to me; it should not require much thought from the administration.  I hope a decision comes soon.

with her position, perhaps sarcasm, though witty, is not the right tone to strike when responding to an initiative introduced by a US Congresswoman, assuming your goal is to be taken seriously?

Just a thought.

any IQ tests to Congress but perhaps if a little more of that attribute had been utilized by the administration they would not have created a hornet's nest for themselves.  Your point is rhetorical and I respond accordingly.   Still don't see nor have I received an answer to the Congressional right of oversight.  This may be the best run company in the world for all I know, but allowing for some posturing by M's of C I believe we should know more.  Future possiblities; lawsuits, replacement companies, and meteor's crashing to earth, for the moment I leave to speculation and the ouija board.  A word about Chertoff and lawyers in general.  In a past life,willfully pushed back to the recesses of memory, I had sufficent professional experience with them to realize that a gap existed between the talk and for lack of a better word, general competence.  Some, not all.  Chertoff as consul for the Senate Banking  Committee was impressive, but, well let's just say Katrina and throw in the name Brown.  I mention this in reference to your opening sentence re intelligence, ability, etc.  Let's see what develops.

And, in the case of the ports, we don't have to give an Arab company the contract. While I support free trade with the UAE, and the risks are probably not all that great, this is a bad move.

I think it's a security risk that, however small, should not be taken. I think it's politically foolish. I think it looks idiotic to be worried over security and fighting over terrorism--the majority of which is funded and carried out by arabs, sorry to say--and then turn over any function of port management to the UAE.

It may look good on paper. The UAE may be very westernized. But, you know, most of the time the terrorists don't hide their bombs in big red boxes that say "Bomb" on the front. The 9/11 terrorists did many things to avoid standing out and to appear thoroughly westernized before the attacks. And, when they did attack, they used our own systems against us and turned our commercial airliners into deadly weapons.

As nutty as they may seem, we don't have as much to worry about from folks with bushy black beards setting fire to flags in the streets while screaming "Death to America" as we do from the folks who desire that goal just as earnestly, but are clean shaven, put on a suit and tie, and conduct themselves as pure businessmen.

Sorry, come on. I know where not selling our ports. I know there are a lot of people involved in port management. But come on. The ports? To a middle eastern company? This is just a bad idea all the way around, and I expect it's not going to happen, and will just stand out as an unnecessary political failure for the Bush admin. One that could have easily been avoided.

Or lack thereof is not a good argument here, as this was a clearly ill-considered decision, at least politically. Given the insane amount of cash thrown at Katrina to be flushed down the toilet, I think it would have been worth it to the Bush admin to spend a little extra money and find a company not located in the middle east to handle port management.

Did they not know how it would sound, even to many of their supporters? Did they not know how it would play in the media? Did they not know that many of the folks in congress would be hearing from their constituents, loud and clear, that they don't like this idea? If superior intellect is involved here, then we must be talking about the blind leading the dumb. Because if this was a carefully crafted where everything was scrutinized and considered, the admin seems to be surprised by the political fall out--and I just don't see how that can be. Any thoughtful politician would have to know how this would play in both the red states and the blue.

While I am highly conscious of the law of unintended consequences, this is also a bad argument in this case. What might be the unintended consequences of putting a UAE company in charge of our ports? Those potentially negative consequences seem a lot more material to me, at this moment, than putting a stop to this bone-headed idea.

Finally, bad ideas are bad ideas. While this may only be a bad idea in the political sense, it might be a real security risk. I don't know. But I do know that the procedural argument is also a bad argument. While I understand why there is a division of power, and why the procedures should be observed, if something is a truly bad idea, letting it slide because it's procedurally impure to have congress try and put a stop to it is just foolish.

If your boss was driving you home from a party and was about to drive off the bridge, would you stop him, if you could? Or would you let him, so he could leave you in the car to drown and eventually report the accident many hours later? I mean, he is your boss, after all. Wouldn't that be insubordination?

With such an odd and politically foolish move, I think the people to blame for any unintended consequences can be found in the Bush administration. If they did not predict this outcome for this sort of decision, then they certainly don't have anything on the intellects in congress. Even if it is a bad move on the part of congress, and I don't think I agree that it is, the Bush admin left themselves wide open for just this sort of thing--in fact, practically invited it--and it's something that would have been easily preventable. It's a very large planet, and surely there is a management company that could do the job that isn't located in the part of the world voted "Most Likely to Detonate a Dirty Bomb In An American Theme Park".

security and now this!!!BAD IDEA.

Because Congress has the power to intervene does not mean they should. They bring nothing other than politics to this evaluation.

Listen to them, its all grandstanding, on both sides of the aisle.

this was not some RFP issued by the Bush administration. The current contract holder the British firm P&O decided to sell their business interests to the company in the UAE. Plain simple business transaction, let's not make it something it isn't. No ports for sale, no contract out for bid, nada.

surely there is a management company that could do the job that isn't located in the part of the world

Read.My.Lips. No one went out looking for the UAE company to provide port services. This was a decision between two commercial interests. If the Port of New York doesn't like the decision they should place the contract out to bid, if they were smart enough to leave themselves that option in the contract.

And I don't claim to know whether this is security risk or not. That's the job of the administration; that's what they are supposed to do. At some point we have to 'have faith' that the people charged with the assessment are doing their jobs properly. Is the Congress going to make every security related decision every day? Because if they want to do this, they are going to be very busy. The Congress is very very good at second guessing; they can stop this, but  you will never see them take responsibility for their decisions (for the perfect example of Congress' behavior see Nick's piece this morning on FEMA.)

This is all nonsense, complete and utter nonsense.

she has found a way to put her pants on other than one leg at a time, then her initiative is open to question, even sarcastic question.

But in fairness to the Congressman, it isn't only her. Large parts of both the House and Senate are no participating in this feeding frenzy of politics.

A reporter on FNC said "contract for port supervision." Yesterday it was "selling the Port of New York."

There is no supervision involved here, you got it right, it's port operation, day to day, run of the mill stuff --- like pumping the sewage.

Good observation.

no one is betraying the troops.

We recently had some complaints about the administration shooting itself in the foot. This is a prime example.

The pros and cons of the deal aside, it looks  bad, real bad, and they should have known it. You don't try to convince the American people to accept warrantless wiretaps while at the same time insisting that Arab control of our ports is no problem.

Even if it isn't, you can expect administration critics to make hay out of it. Somebody at the WH was asleep at the switch.

Why do I get the feeling that the headlines could read "Hamas Hired For Port Security" and there'd be people attempting to defend it? No matter how you look at it, this was a bad decision.

Take a break, let out a belch, take a deep breath, then come back.

It's disturbing - and disgusting, to an extent.

The only thing changing is where the profits go, not how things are being run or the security measures.

Rep. Blackburn is right to ask some serious questions, as are Senator Graham, and even Senators Schumer and Menendez.

While some people in the Bush Administration might believe that the UAE can be trusted with this, and maybe they might not be responsible for security right now, who can say what the future of the UAE might be?

The UAE is a tiny country bordering on Saudi Arabia, and all it would take is a well-organized group of radical Wahhabis to stage a coup, take over the government of the UAE, and they would OWN the contracting company. Then they could easily bribe a few longshoremen to look the other way while they sneak in some WMD on just a few containers, and the damage is done.

Allan Bartlett is right--this looks bad, like the proverbial camel's nose in the tent. We can support President Bush and his Administration on most issues, but Republican members of Congress like Rep. Blackburn (Steve Foley and Peter King are also questioning this) should be willing to blow the whistle when some small commission within the Executive branch makes a bad decision. Quite possibly, President Bush never heard about this until it came up in the press--he's got a lot of other things on his plate, and he can't be everywhere at once. He has been traveling around pushing his energy plan, but hopefully he's on the phone to Washington, and aware that some of his underlings made a bad decision, an it's up to him to reverse it, to protect America.

Whenever anyone in the Executive Branch makes a mistake, everybody blames the President. How many times has the CIA or the State Department undermined President Bush's policies? President Bush should listen to people like Rep. Blackburn and suspend or block this deal, and send everyone back to the drawing boards to find a buyer that Americans can be comfortable with.

this port issue is the gift that keeps on giving to the democrats . here in md. both ehrlich & o`malley were on tv blasting bush about the baltimore harbor.  you could almost see ehrlich cussing under his breath about bush screwing up his re-election campaign, bush is so unpopular in md. it`s going to be tough for ehrlich and this sure doesn`t help.

actually i think ehrlich has a good chance of getting re-elected if bush doesn`t damage him anymore but steele will  go down to defeat.poll all you want.   md. won`t send a republican to the senate but usually the governors race is close.

that we know to be a fact that directly marks this as a bad decision.

BTW, the alternative was a bid from a Singapore company, much larger and more experienced than DPW, but P&O accepted the bid from DPW.

Frankly I think the financing mechanism stinks but that's because I dislike hypocrisy and Islamic rules about interest and the methods used to get around them are pure hypocrisy.

...lets keep a short leash on these Johnny come lately democrats who see in this issue (in preparation for NOV.) an opportunity to stump very hard to look like their strong on National Security and Defense.

We have to drive these two points home to all of the folks we reach on a daily basis:

1. George Bush didn't sell these ports to an Arab country. As we know the Dubai Company purchased a British company who were running these ports, in a deal that's best described as a lease.
   
2. The process or evaluation in which this company's deal went through is based on a "Cold War" procedure which I think we can all agree is out dated and needs to be revamped to fit the modern day. This was more of a short Q and A than a detailed investigation, but is no ones fault as they were following rules that were in place pre 911.  

I believe the focus should be shelving this deal for now until we can rewrite the procedure in which we evaluate these types' of purchases as it relates to national security in a post 911 world. Also not letting Democrats get away with the spin of the blame bush meme or letting them use this as a way to try and show how "they can be strong on national security and defense too."

Authoritarian governments and governments with dictatorships are way too unpredictable to be allowed to run ports or own large oil companies on American soil.  

The "Arabs" will not be "in control of any of the six ports involved; not, nada, nil, zilch, nothing. The ports involved are controlled by the local port authorities, and they are not going to give up control to anyone.

I just couldn't pass up a teed-up shot at Congress.

I'm still ticked off that Pat Leahy isn't sitting in Leavenworth for his leaks from the Intel Committee, and I can't believe Harry Reid still has a security clearance after making comments on the FBI files of judicial nominees.  And that's just for starters.

The mother of all such moments will always remain what happened on October 2, 1978 "When I hit the ball," Bucky Dent recalled, "I knew that I had hit it high enough to hit the wall. But there were shadows on the net behind the wall and I didn't see the ball land there. I didn't know I had hit a homer until I saw the umpire at first signaling home run with his hand. I couldn't believe it."

Neither could the Red Sox. Don Zimmer, then Boston's skipper, changed the Yankee shortstop's name to "Bucky F___g Dent." Red Sox fans had even more salty phrases.

Dent's home run was the headline grabber in that one-game playoff game between the historic rivals at Fenway Park before 32,925. The Yankees were down to the Sox in the AL East by 14 games on July 19. After Billy Martin was fired as manager, Bob Lemon led the team to a 52-21 record. Losing 14 of 17 in September, the Sox made a late-season run winning their last eight games, catching the Yankees on the last day of the season. ...

For the rest, go here.

Politically it is great left or right

a total winner issue

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060221/ap_on_go_co/ports_security

I can't believe I'm siding with Chuck Schumer on anything.

The good news is that I'm mostly only siding with him against Jimmy Carter.

On our side is Frist, Coburn, etc

Sorry, it had been a little while since I've seen someone issue a call to support the troops.

Just doing my part.

...company deals with shipping schedules, ship departures and arrivals, schedules for using docks,...

[sarcasm mode] Absolutely nothing here that would be valuable to a terrorist organization trying to smuggle people, bombs, guns or contraband into the country. And absolutley nothing here that would be useful for planning to blow-up a ship and cause the largest adverse impact in a major metropolitan area. No risk here what-so-ever.

Move along now! Move along. Nothing to see here. [/sarcasm mode]

While I haven't yet decided where I stand on this issue (leaning against, but not committed), I am sure of one thing: I don't want too much transparency on this.

Everything that Congress hears and publicizes goes straight into the Al Queda operating files. And then they start looking for weaknesses to game the system.

So, while I think it is appropriate for Congress to slow the process down a bit for consideration or re-consideration, I really don't want Congress holding extended public hearings on methods of securing ports. I might be able to support a closed session, but somehow those seem not to stay closed, as we've learned with both the secret "prisons" and "domestic" wiretapping cases.

Congresswoman Blackburn, I might trust you to sit on the closed committee, and I'd probably trust Senator Frist or Congressman Hastert, quite frankly I'd rather there were no committee than have Congresswoman Pelosi or Senators Schumer, Reid, or Kennedy on any such committee.

P&O Ports is responsible for all port operations in North America as well as for pursuing development opportunities in the `Americas' Region - incorporating North, South and Central America as well as the Caribbean. POPNA was formed in 1999 with the acquisition by P&O of International Terminal Operating Company, Inc (ITO), a New Jersey based stevedore and terminal operator that had been established in the USA since 1921, with operations along the East and Gulf coasts.

In April 2000, P&O Ports consolidated its position in North America through the acquisition of Gulf Services Group, a leading stevedore in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and the Fairway Terminal Corporation, the largest and most experienced stevedoring contractor and terminal operator in Texas. POPNA is now the largest independent stevedore and terminal operator on the US East and Gulf coasts with operations in most ports from Portland, Maine to Brownsville, Texas.-I found this (P&O's) PR spiel on a career site- I am sure there is more complete text out there

I wish I had a better source, but it seems to me this should be the starting point for questions.

but it still looks bad.

BTW, would you support the deal if it involved Iran or Syria? How about our "allies" the Pakistanis?

The UAE is an ally. The ports are currently being run by a British company (they have no terrorists in Britian, right?) What is the upside in trying to kill this deal? There isn't any. It's all downside.

This is an issue that is being played up purely for political gain. It started on the Democrat side and now the Republicans have jumped in to get in on the action.

The end result is it will tick off the UAE and we will gain nothing with regards to port safety.

Take the wind out of the sails of the anti-American liberals who want to claim they support the troops by protesting the war.

Is killing a deal and angering an ally on the GWOT just for political gain.

I might have jumped the gun on shelving this deal or not allowing it to go through. I was focusing more on the politics than the actual issue of this company running the ports.

As I've come to understand it better I see no problem with this company signing the checks...

However I do think we still need to rework the process and evaluation procedures to reflect a post 911 world when it comes to these types of deals.

of getting that information. It may surprise you to learn that ship arrivals, departures and berthing information are not a state secret.

The only other company that bid for P&O's business was a Singapore-based company. No risk there I guess :-)

Why does it "look" bad? Because some Congresscritter or newspaper says so? This thing has gotten so crazy that now we have Carter backing the WH on the deal (the kiss of death of there ever was one) and Schumer waxing enthusiastically about having {cue ominous music here} Halliburton run the ports.

Only problem with Schumer's idea is that Halliburton didn't bid for P&O's business and apparently has no interest in running port operations. But let's not let reality get in the way of a really good opportunity for the Dems to show how strong they are on national security.

JAMES S. ROBBINS HAS THIS TO SAY FROM NRO symposium

I have to wonder if the approval of Dubai Ports World is payback for recent support by Dubai and the UAE in the war on terrorism. Some data points:

December 2004: Dubai was the first government in the region to sign on to the U.S. Container Security Initiative to screen all containers heading for the United States for security risks.

May 2005: Dubai signed an agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy to bar passage of nuclear material from passing through its ports, and install radiation-detecting equipment.

June 2005: The UAE joined the International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

October 2005: The UAE Central Bank directed banks and financial institutions in the country to tighten their internal systems and controls in their fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. UAE banks routinely cooperate with U.N. and international law-enforcement agencies in supplying information about suspect accounts.

November 2005: In the wake of the terror bombings in Jordan, General Shaykh Muhammad Bin-Zayid Al Nuhayyan, heir apparent of Abu Dhabi and supreme commander of the UAE armed forces, stated that "Muslim scholars who live among us must adopt a stand toward this terrorism... If they do not declare [terrorists] to be infidels, they should at least consider them as non-Muslims. ...If there are no honest stands toward these non-religious and inhumane operations, these [attacks] will continue."

December 2005: The UAE National Consultative Council called for declaration of an all-out war against terrorism and depriving any person who pledges allegiance to foreign extremist groups the right of UAE citizenship. The council proclaimed that it regarded links to such groups as high treason.

The UAE has also assisted the Coalition effort in Iraq, in particular training Iraqi security forces and sending material assistance to the Iraqi people.

There is a lot on the other side of the ledger too -- particularly a thank you statement from Hamas to the UAE in July 2005 for all the support -- but given the way relationships work in the Middle East I can see Dubai expecting favorable treatment in return for its recent cooperation in the effort to combat terrorism, and especially for supporting the war effort in Iraq. It is the way of things.

about all this is that it seems to have pushed the Cheney shotgun non-issue off the front page.

Agreed, we should take a good, hard look and see who's misunderstanding the problem.

I think the key is that the UAE origin of the company is a red herring, and the real issue is that we don't want to trust ANY company with our port security.

By this logic, over half of the United States (55%) doesn't support the troops. Yikes. That's ominous.

http://poll.gallup.com/content/?ci=21553

I wonder what percentage of that 55% are anti-American liberals?

And I guess that also begs the question: if 55% of the people believe one thing, and 42% believe another, which group is the majority and which group is the minority? That's a rather large 13% gap.

Is that I can't figure out if you're trolling or just kinda slow on the ol' reading comprehension.

I only ask because you've been on borrowed time for a while, and I'd like to end the suspense once and for all.

populace.

Dems Supported P&O Security Measure

Lawmakers Initiate Secure Tradelane on US E.Coast - 2002-09-30

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Rep. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., were joined by a council of security technology representatives on Friday to start the Smart and Secure Tradelanes Initiative at points on major Atlantic trade lanes stopping at the ports of New York-New Jersey....Friday's announcement was made at the Port Newark Container Terminal in New Jersey, operated by P&O Ports. On hand were Rick Larrabee, director of Commerce for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Joseph Assante, president of the Port Newark Container Terminal, and Vikram Verma, president and chief executive officer of Savi Technology

"SST will help protect this supply chain and is a major first step in protecting our homeland from a nuclear, biological or conventional weapon from reaching our shores," Schumer said.-Shipping News

Other Security Measures

They include:

The Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism, or C-TPAT. The joint effort involves multiple countries and rewards shippers and carriers that certify the use of best security practices with expedited processing at U.S. ports of entry. The Customs Service, of course, will conduct periodic audits to be sure the practices are actually being carried out.

The Container Security Initiative, or CSI. Under CSI, the United States and governments of some trading partners are working toward a series of bilateral agreements to permit exchange of customs officers and more screening of shipments at outbound ports. The initiative calls for better monitoring and documentation of all workers who help load international cargo and of the process used to seal the containers.

The Smart and Secure Tradelane Initiative, or SST. Under SST, three large seaport operators, representing over 70 percent of the world's container traffic, will collaborate to develop automated tracking, detection, and security technology for containers entering U.S. ports. Eventually, containers leaving the participating ports will be equipped with special seals to detect tampering during transit.-Stanford Graduate Scholl of Business

My Vote

Wasn't intending to troll, as it were. I just saw an argument put forward by one poster (a frequent position that you can't support the troops if you don't support the mission), and chose to respond to it with, perhaps, a different take given some raw data.

If I said something that was out of line or breached the RedState rules, I apologize. Let me know what I said wrong, and I will not do it or say it again.

Perhaps I am a bit dim or slow on the old reading comprehension as I must to admit I'm confused by your post.

Did I say something that was out of line? Again, my apologies, if so.

supporting this decision - the facts are irrelevent.

The first rule of politics is that if you have to explain, then you're already losing.

First of all, it is well within the rights of the U.S. to not approve the merged entity's rights to continue to operate these ports. That is why the deal had to be reviewed. For National Security reasons, we could block this.

Second of all, we went to war in Iraq because, officially, we couldn't take a chance on what Saddam might do. No one knew what he would do in the future, but the concern was over what might happen when/if he had WMD, and when/if he chose to share that WMD with terrorists in order to hit us. It was a preventative war, everyone on both sides of this issue accepts that much. It was a war waged to prevent a possible negative outcome down the road. In other words, it was a war fought because we couldn't not be as careful as possible.

Here is how this looks to the average person. We were willing to go to war in a foreign country, kill a lot of people, spend a lot of money we need in the U.S., and do it all because after 9/11 there is no such thing as too careful.

The same justifications were put forward for why travelers now must endure intense screenings, why international calls are being monitored when suspected terrorists are involved, and also even why we are now probably going to hit Iran over potential nukes. After 9/11, there is no such thing as too careful.

But, when it comes to our actual border, we seem to be entirely lackadaisical in our approach. In terms of border security and immigration, the American people overwhelmingly want something done. But the Bush Administration has not taken bold action on the border or on immigration, and now this action pops up.

The Dubai company may be safe. But the perception on the American street is that we are taking an unacceptable risk.

You can insult average Americans all you want with sarcasm about how stupid they are to be concerned by this. You can rail against their inability to see the facts. You can do all of that, and it only proves that what Lindsey Graham said about the Bush Administration applies equally to you - you are tone-deaf politically.

For an average Joe, you can't come out with preventative wars, wiretapping, and curtailment of some civil liberties based on the justification that it is all needed to protect the country, and then turn around and turn over operational control of ports to a company which is an extension of an Arab government.

It isn't flying. Even Hannity can't swallow this. No one can, except the Bush Administration and some posters on this board.

Logic won't cut it. Arguing against the intelligence of Congress won't cut. Americans are afraid of this, and being afraid they would just as soon not take any chances. Period.

Republicans in Congress understand this and are getting out in front of this issue. Why don't so many posters on this board and the Bush Administration understand it so clearly?

Many of you who are backing this have said over and over again that 9/11 changed everything and that we have to be as careful as possible. Hence Guatanamo Bay detentions, torture of suspects when needed to extract information, preventative wars, and more, including some calling for the prosecution of opponents of the Iraq War as traitors.

Now - suddenly we're not supposed to be as careful as possible. Now, we're supposed to pretend that operational control couldn't allow Al Queda moles to infiltrate the port operations and determine ways to overcome security from the inside.

Is it possible, or is it fiction? I have no idea.

However, after three airliners were simultaneously hijacked and used as missiles, forgive the American people for their obvious concern.

First of all, it is well within the rights of the U.S. to not approve the merged entity's rights to continue to operate these ports. That is why the deal had to be reviewed. For National Security reasons, we could block this.

Maybe the feds could force the local cities to rescind their leases or confiscate their property but I am not so certain about the Federal's ability to do that. It may be a local issue. These entities do not operate the ports, but only a limited number of births within the ports.

The feds could issue broad prohibitions against trade with the UAE but that would be counter productive.

Still this whole overblown rhetoric is really nothing more than mid term electioneering by the democrats.

It appears that like many others you have fallen into a political trap set by the democrats using misinformation about what is happening.

There is no benefit to campaigning for the democrats. Every city where P&O operates births is DEEP BLUE democrat. This is a democrat created risk, that the democrat propaganda machine is trying to smoke you into thinking that it is Bush's fault.

The simple solution isn't federal. It is that the local cities recind the permits the issue to operate the births and seek new bidders for the problem. The Unions will just love that.

"If you have to explain it you're losing. You have to get out ahead of this. The facts are irrelevant. Logic won't cut it. Tone-deaf politically."

This is the exact same line of reasoning that led to the new prescription drug entitlement. It is the exact same line of reasoning that lead to McCain-Feingold becoming law. This is the same line of reasoning that always leads to increased spending. Running the country by polls is a very bad idea... at least for us. The easy answers are always the liberal ones.

Republicans in Congress who have come out against accepting the Dubai company also fallen for Democrat propaganda?

They sense what you seem to be missing, there is no upside to arguing in favor of this. None, zippo, nada. It is a losing case and will hand the Democrats an issue going into the 2006 election. That is why Republican officeholders are scrambling to get on the other side of it from the administration.

National security is not a local issue. If the administration felt that this was an unacceptable risk, then action could be taken to rebid the operation of the ports.

If this is not a federal issue, then why was approval of a federal commission necessary? If it is a purely local issue, then why involve the Federal government? Shouldn't the local Ports Authorities have been the approving agencies on the deal, and not the Commerce Department?

Clearly there is a federal dimension to this issue, and an ability for the federal government to exercise control over the proceedings.

By all means, keep arguing all of you that the Republican officeholders are stupid or spineless, or whatever.

Keep arguing that the American public doesn't know the facts. That may be true, but it is also irrelevent. This isn't about facts, it is about perception that the Administration is willing to take chances with our security.

I know that the Dems have no credibility on the security issue, but this give Schumer and Co. a chance to look like hawks on an issue that Americans care about - border security.

If you and others can't see how dangerous this is politically, then I don't know how to explain it to you any further.

...and he can't help but kick his leg.

Put the word "troops" in front of a liberal, and he has to spew a Talking Point.

Reminds me of Judge Doom in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit":

"Shave and a haircut..."

He said

Take the wind out of the sails of the anti-American liberals who want to claim they support the troops by protesting the war.

You then cited a poll about support for the war, not about protesting.

You then proceeded to jab with the Pointy Stick.

Please don't do that.

I'll preface my comments by saying I haven't done my due diligence with regards to the firm that wants to take over port operations.  That being said, I find the rhetoric over this issue puzzling.  I am troubled by the notion that because a company is "run by Arabs", that consequently, they cannot be trusted to do the job.  What does the transaction entail, exactly?  Doesn't this same firm run the ports where the original cargo is onloaded?  Have there been issues with their tenure in managing other ports?

If we are to appeal to moderates in the Arab world, and our war isn't against all Muslims, then lacking anything substantive against them, what is the justification for turning their ownership down?  

The phrase that two of the 9/11 hijackers are from the UAE is a specious one at best.  Following that logic, it was wrong to have a British firm run the ports, since the shoe bomber was from Great Britain.  Better yet, Timothy McVay was from New York, so no New York companies can't run the ports either.  Perform the due diligence, and find a real reason to deny or approve the sale.

Actually, the local Ports Authority seem to be against it. Governor Pataki of New York, and Ehrlich of Maryland (both Republicans) are trying to block the deal for the ports of New York and Baltimore, respectively. They, too would be blamed if something blew up in their cities.

One of the other ports affected by this deal is Miami...I wonder what the Governor of Florida, who happens to be the President's brother, thinks of this?

against the Medicare entitlement by appealing to classical Republican ideas such as adherence to the free market, fiscal conservatism, and limiting government. I think a majority of Republican voters and even a majority of voters in general would have accepted that case. There was no massive outcry among the public for this program.

All Republicans had to say was, "This will break the bank. We can't afford it. We can't even pay for the system we have in place now. It will cost trillions. We need a better idea."

Americans weren't in a froth wanting this, the President and the Republicans simply wanted to take a potential campaign issue away from the Dems and they did so - by actively betraying Republican principles in the process.

McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional. It is a violation of the First Amendment. No explanation is needed. Americans understand what unconstitutional means. Again, I don't recall gobs of Americans standing up demanding this bill. It was a creation of Washington and is largely ignored by the mass of people. And again, it was the Republican establishment seeking to quiet a potential campaign issue that led to an abandonment of Republican principles.

But what is your reasoning on this? You have to stand before the American people and say, "We don't think that allowing a firm owned by the government of the UAE to manage operations at some of our most strategic ports is likely to result in a nuclear, chemical, or bio weapon being imported into the United States. We don't think it will increase the likelihood the thousands of Americans dying. We feel that this is an acceptable risk."

This is horrible politically. It is a denial, again, of Republican ideals. The party has been saying, as I said, that we can't take chances. We have to do the utmost. The administration is now trapped by its own rhetoric. "When we said we can't take chances, we weren't serious."

If you are going to buck such a wave of public opinion, then you better have something better in your corner than 'trust us, this will be okay.'

if the discussion is focused on blocking the sale of P&O terminals to Dubai World.

Damned if you do damned if you don't. It is all about the mid term elections.

If President Bush takes any action to interfere, (with the merger) he plays right into the Democrat's election strategy that President Bush is an out of control cowboy bullying our allies and needs to be reigned in for our own protection (read vote democrats for congress).

If President Bush doesn't take action (against the merger) he plays right into the Democrat's election strategy that administration is weak on homeland security and controlled by his pals in big oil. (Read vote democrats for congress)

(copied from the my diary entry earlier today: Dubai Port issue a bogus Dem Political trap)

We need to focus the discusion on the need to insure port security. Not whether the feds should favor one foreign company over another foriegn company to run some of the docks at our ports.

The cities control the leases on the births, it is up to them to work with the feds to fund better security. The lease and access fee is the critical issue. Not whether Bush can interfere with a legal international stock transaction.

Perhaps you are correct that there is no benefit to ignoring this problem, but it isn't one this congress created. Picking up the ball on this and then not running with it would be worse.  This is just one of many companies that operate cranes that unload ships that come to our country. The focus should be on checking every container, regardless of who signs the stevedores paycheck.

And again, it was the Republican establishment seeking to quiet a potential campaign issue that led to an abandonment of Republican principles.

This is right on and the same thing going on with the UAE dock bruhaha.

The prescription drug benefit was one of the top few issues of the 2000 campaign. No idea why... it just was. You even had 25 and 30 year olds on those idiotic "town hall" forums asking about Medicare prescription drug benefits.

CFR never polled very high on the "most important issue" polls but did have popular support (if you asked for/against CFR). That is the reason Bush signed the bill. He was against it, then caved on it because he thought he was on the wrong side of the issue.

In both cases we could've done the right thing, but in both cases we did the easy thing instead. Killing this deal is the easy thing to do, not the right thing to do.

The response is simple. There is no difference between having a UAE company running operations at these ports and having a British company doing the same. I don't see any additional risk here.

I wonder how long it will turn for the debate to turn to nationalizing the ports? We could turn every dockworker into a federal employee, like we did with airline screeners. It worked so well there. (Another place where we caved to political expediency over good sense).

Then we could roll them into DHS. (Yet another place where we caved to political expediency over good sense... doesn't seem to be any shortage of examples of this behavior).

My prediction here is that the administration caves and the deal is killed. Doesn't make it right, though.

... is that this would be easy to spin as it has been spun.

The administration should have been ready with a simple and straightforward response:

This contract has nothing to do with security: the Coast Guard, Customs, and the local Port Authorities and local law enforcement share overlapping responsibilities for security.  P&O, and now D.P., have none.

I'm not offended by Homeland Security's signing off on this.  I am surprised that no one had the common sense to realize this was vulnerable to partisan haymaking and prepared a response -- particularly over the weeklong buildup in the Press.

You have to stand before the American people and say, "We don't think that allowing a firm owned by the government of the UAE to manage operations at some of our most strategic ports is likely to result in a nuclear, chemical, or bio weapon being imported into the United States..."

September 11, 2001. Air craft from the Saudi Arabian National Airlines did not fly into the world trade centers today.

The case to be made is to stand before the american people and say that we are insuring that every container from every country is carefully screened.

We are not specifically concerned that Dubai World will operate SOME of the cranes on SOME of the docks in SOME of the ports that unloads SOME of the containers that come into this country. This is a legal internation transaction over which we have no influence.

Rather we the government are concerned to insure that ALL of the containers from EVERY ship is SAFE, regardless of who nationality of the country that unloads them.

It could easily be an American shipping container, from an American ship, unloaded by an American stevedore company that contains a bomb.

i do preface these statements that it at the least, looks bad for the admin. and will never go over well for americans no matter how well everyone understands it. a poor move by the admin.

here's how this works, and i admit; i do not have 100% understanding myself; but i'm up on most everybody i talk to. think of it as southwest or continental airlines at the airports. its the best analogy. the UAE company is manning parts of the ports much like southwest can lease gates at hobby airport in Houston. the city of Houston still has the airport and the Feds still do all security and all customers and bags are treated and inspected by the feds. southwest just handles the bookings and equipment.

its the same at the ports. the US port authority cities still control the port and the coast guard still handles inspections and security checks for cargo, the UAE company is the intermediary.

yep, GW and the gop congress is trying to give the dems some seats. theyre doing thier darndest. i hope cheney tells 'em he's taking them all hunting if they dont get in line.

is that the British government is a democracy. The British government is our closest ally, and has been for over 60 years. Britain jointly developed the A-bomb with us. Britain freely shares intelligence with us. Britain sent troops to both Afghanistan and Iraq.

I'd say they're pretty different from the UAE. If they sent any troops, they went to fight for the other side.

Yes... Bush said today, too, that "people who are against it must first step up and admit they they are against it because the UAE is a Middle Eastern country."

Okay .. I admit that the primary reason that I'm against it is because UAE is a Middle Eastern country.

Do I need to sign that in blood cuz I've got a knife if I do.

and a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon ends up coming through one of those ports - then you can kiss the Republican Party good bye.

Forever.

If this deal stands, and the terrorists manage to get a bomb through, then it will be hung around Republican necks. It will be a killing blow.

Even if the Dubai Company were not involved, the mere fact that an Arab company was running the port facilities through which Arab terrorists smuggled a bomb will be enough to guarantee a Democratic lock on the presidency and possibly even Congress for a long, long time.

This is the risk you are advocating that we take.

The American people absolutely do not see an Arab company the same as a British company. Whether you like it or not, 'Arabs' scare the daylights out of Americans. Having Arab execs with all access badges to go anywhere they want to inside our ports is going to worry most Americans.

Yes, it is true that a Saudi Airliner was not hijacked and used on 9/11. But what does that prove? It could simply prove that the terrorists didn't want to cause Muslim casualties, so they hijacked airliners that would be populated primarily by non-Muslim passengers and flown by non-Muslim pilots. Plus, let's be clear, there are a lot fewer Saudi Airline flights to choose from than American or Delta.

Again, the question is - does this deal enhance our security? The basic argument seems to be that it doesn't lessen it. But then again, a plausible case can be put forward that it might. Is this deal in keeping with the president's pledge to do everything possible to prevent another 9/11?

If there were some huge principle at stake here, then I would stand with you guys. But there isn't. Americans are afraid that an Arab company will be a Trojan horse. Why fight that? Why not just get another company? Why stand on a shakey principle when the stakes are so high?

Why not play this safe? Because we would upset the UAE? Because it wouldn't be politically correct? Because the Muslim community worldwide would think we are racists?

Those reasons are not high on American priority lists.

As to container security overall, that is an issue that Kerry mentioned in the campaign, but did not fully exploit. Currently, all kinds of things are smuggled into the country via containers, including Chinese women as sex slaves. We do have a big issue, at the present, with container security.

I'd love to get busy correcting that security hole, but I haven't seen any administration proposals to tighten container security. The image in the public's mind is that Bush isn't serious about those border issues, and this  decision just plays into it.

If a border and security hawk suddenly shows up on the Democratic side, then the Republican Party will have rough sledding ahead in '08, unless the party distances itself from the Bush Administration on these issues. That is not something I relish the thought of.

You can accuse the American people of being ignorant, illogical, and motivated by fear. Hey - welcome to electoral politics.

 

that thought a prescription drug benefit was a good idea. However, I don't know any potential Republican voter who really got passionate on that issue.

If the president had left it alone and done nothing, then I don't think the elections since 2000 would have been affected by his inaction. People would easily turn their attention to more important matters.

On the other hand, national security in a post-9/11 world is something that people are extremely passionate about. Actions that lessen our perceived security get people fired up.

The Administration has played into that skillfully in the past to rally support behind policies. This time, the administration has run afoul of that same human reaction - the craving for maximizing security.

As for the rest, see my response below.

By the way, I hate the tendency of this administration to cave with a passion. This is one of those issues, however, that I don't think is worth fighting over.

With doing everything why aren't you advocating complete nationalization of ports? Blocking the UAE deal doesn't solve anything... for example:

What if a British company ran the ports in question and a NBC weapon came through (never mind that their job is not inspection or law enforcement)? Don't you think there would be blowback there? What if they sell to a Russian company instead? Chinese? Indonesian? Venezuelan? What countries are acceptable?

We are not turning over port security to these people, just management...it wasn't even run by American's before this.

A lot of people who don't know how the port system works have come out hard against this; I stand with President Bush.

I get your point, and I'm not saying that you are entirely wrong, however, given that this company also controls the ports that are the origination points for cargo coming into US ports, what has been the historical fallout?

Mainly, in looking at this company's history of doing business, do we have some sort of gigantic security breach that someone can point to?  Have al Qaeda operatives been acting as stevedores on the docks of Hong Kong?  If there have been no security lapses at the ports of origination, than is this some elaborate ruse to mollify the US security apparatus, so that, ingeniously, this company can take over the ports so that they can then launch their nefarious plot?

If we just make a blanket statement that they are Arab, therefore we can't do business underlies a simplistic overview of the situation.  If that were the case, why do we buy oil from Arabs?  We have a lot of oil over here.  If we don't let this deal proceed, WHO will do it?  Are you saying that some new government agency for port operations is necessary?  What are the American alternatives to this firm?  

It's real easy to denigrate "Arabs" surrounding this deal.  If not Dubai World Ports, who else?  How much?  Will we be safer?

This port decision will probably go down in history as one of the most bizarre in political history!  Have both President Bush and Carl Rove lost their minds.  What in the world is going on?  Surely Rove would recognize that the pledge of a veto over this issue by President Bush is just insane.  If we are lucky, the Democrats will only gain single house control instead of overwhelming gains in both houses due to unbelievable stupidity.  

This has nothing to do with the real effect of UAE control - but the public perception will be outrage (and rightly so).  Either open this up to full scrutiny or drop it immediately.  The damage may already be too great to control at this point.